Crl. Misc. No.3069/2024 KABC010086612024 IN THE COURT OF THE LXI ADDL. CITY CIVIL, SESSIONS JUDGE: BENGALURU CITY Dated this the 05 th day of April, 2024 -: PRESENT :- SMT.NISHARANI A.C., B.A., LL.B., III ACC & SJ, Bengaluru C/C LXI ACC & SJ Bangalore, (CCH-62) CRL. MISC. No.3069/2024 Petitioner/s : 1. Nagesh.B S/o.Late A.Babu Rao Aged about 60 years R/a.No.28/1-59 8th Cross Opp. Venkateshwara Temple Venkatapura Koramangala Bengaluru-560 034.

2. Adithya.N.Rao S/o.Nagesh.B Aged about 30 years R/a.No.28/1-59 8th Cross Opp. Venkateshwara Temple Venkatapura Koramangala Bengaluru-560 034.

(By Sri.J.Prakash, Adv.) Crl. Misc. No.3069/2024 V/s. Respondent : The State by Madiwala Police Station Bengaluru. (Rep. by Public Prosecutor, Bengaluru.) ORDER ON ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION ONE FILED BY THE PETITIONERS UNDER SECTION 438 OF Cr.P.C. This criminal Mis. Petition is filed by the petitioners under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., seeking the relief of anticipatory bail in relation to the case bearing No-CC. No.22086/2023 (Cr. No.-189/2021), which is registered by the Madiwala Police Station, Bengaluru alleging that petitioners have committed the offences punishable under Section 423, 422 420 of IPC.

2. The petitioners contents that they are innocent of the

alleged offences and they have been falsely implicated in the instant case and investigation is already completed and charge sheet has been filed and they are no more required for any further investigation and the alleged offences are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life and and they are permanent resident of the address as shown in the cause title of the petition and they have got deep roots in the society and they hail from respectable family and have got aged parents and children to look after and they are law abiding Crl. Misc. No.3069/2024 citizen and have no bad antecedents and they are ready and willing to abide by the conditions that may be imposed by the court and they are also ready to offer solvent surety to the satisfaction of the court for their release on bail, hence they are entitled for bail.

3. On the other hand the learned Public Prosecutor has

filed his objections along with the report of the I.O. & opposed the above application that the grounds urged for seeking anticipatory bail are not satisfactory & the charge sheet and other materials placed on record primafacie discloses the involvement of the petitioners in commission of the alleged offences and now at this stage if the petitioners are granted anticipatory bail then they may threaten, abscond and tamper the prosecution witnesses & accordingly prayed for rejection of the bail petition.

4. In view of the above said facts and circumstances, the

points that arise for my consideration are as follows; 1) Whether the anticipatory bail petition filed by the petitioners under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., deserves to be allowed? 2) To what Order?

5. I have carefully perused the entire materials available

on record and heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent. Crl. Misc. No.3069/2024

6. Now, my findings on the above points are as follows:-

Point No.1 – In Affirmative with conditions Point No.2 – As per final Order, for the following; R E A S O N S

7. Point No.1:- On perusal of the FIR, complaint &

charge sheet it is alleged that on 19/06.2021 the complainant had taken the flat bearing No.G-01bearing No.66-187-59 of Vandana Jasmin Apartment situated at Venkatapura, 1st Block, Koramangala, Bengaluru from one Nagesh S/o.Adithya N Rao on lease for a sum of Rs.17,50,000/- & when that is so the officials of the Union Bank of India and the police along with Court Order seized the said house as there was bank loan on the said flat and when the complainant enquired the same with the owner of the flat and for that the flat owned informed the complainant and he would come and resolve the issued and had switched off his mobile and when the complainant verified with the property tax receipt then the complainant came to know that the said property was standing in the name of one Smt.Shyamala Bai and thus the petitioners have cheated the complainant by posing themselves as the owners of the said flat and had received a sum of Rs.17,50,000/- from the complainant and thereby the petitioners have committed the alleged offences punishable under section 423, 422 & 420 of IPC. Crl. Misc. No.3069/2024

8. Now, it is the contention of the petitioners that they

are innocent of the alleged offences and they have not committed any offences as alleges and since the investigation has been completed and charge sheet is filed they are no more required for any further investigation & they are ready to abide by the terms and conditions that may be imposed by the court.

9. On the other hand though the prosecution has

opposed the case of the petitioners that if the petitioners are granted anticipatory bail then they may threaten, abscond and tamper the prosecution witnesses is concerned, the same do no hold any water as the cause title of the petition, Absolute Sale Deed dt.23.07.2015 & the Aadhar card of the petitioners one produced by them shows that they are permanent resident of Bengaluru and their presence can be easily secured before the court & I.O.

10. I am aware that this Court cannot and is not

supposed to sift the evidence made available by the prosecution at the time of deciding the bail petition. However, only for the purpose of deciding that whether the petitioner is entitled for anticipatory bail or not, I discuss the facts alleged by the prosecution and whatever I say, while disposing of this bail petition, cannot be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the of the main case. Crl. Misc. No.3069/2024

11. And more over since the alleged offences are not at

all punishable with death or life imprisonment and since the charge sheet has already been filed and since the alleged offences against the petitioners has to be decided through a thorough trial and since the apprehension of the prosecution could be met by imposing stringent conditions then looking into the nature and gravity of the alleged offences, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioners have made out a prima-facie case for grant of bail subject to conditions and accordingly, I have answered the above point No.1 in affirmative.

12. Point No.2 :- In view of the discussion made on

point No.1 and further holding it in the affirmative, I proceed to pass the following:- O R D E R The anticipatory bail petition filed by the petitioners u/s 438 of Cr.P.C., is hereby allowed subject to following conditions;

1. That in the event of arrest of the

petitioners in C.C. No.22086/2023 (Cr. No.189/2021) of respondent Police they shall be released on bail on executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- each with one surety for each petitioner for the like sum amount. Crl. Misc. No.3069/2024

2. That the petitioners shall not

hold any threat to the complainant and shall not tamper with any of the prosecution witnesses directly or indirectly.

3. That the petitioners shall furnish

their residential address proof and that of their surety.

4. That the petitioners shall not

indulge in similar type of offences in future.

5. That the petitioners shall appear

before the trail court regularly without fail on receipt of the summons.

6. That if the petitioners fails to

obey any of the above said conditions, then this bail order automatically stands cancelled. (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by her, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 05th day of April, 2024). (NISHARANI A.C) C/C LXI ACC & SJ, B’luru